A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

They are equivalent descriptions. ALL quantum particles have an associated wave. All waves have an associated quantum particle description.

Why then did you contradict me earlier when I had said that light was em energy, that no, it was a particle?

 

[Polymath257]

You are purposely being pedantic, do you want to get into the wave particle debate, when I say it is em wave energy, you categorically said no, it was not, light is a particle. Do you deny light exists as em energy waves?

Light exists as E&M waves. Electromagnetism isn't the same as energy.

Would you say that sound exists as pressure energy waves?

 

[Polymath257]

You are purposely being pedantic, do you want to get into the wave particle debate, when I say it is em wave energy, you categorically said no, it was not, light is a particle. Do you deny light exists as em energy waves?

You asked whether light was a wave or a particle. It is both. It is an E&M wave *and* is composed of photons.

The photons, or alternatively, the E&M fields, have energy. But they are not the *same* as energy.

Would you say that sound is an energy wave?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Once again, and for the umpteenth time. Electric and magnetic fields have energy. Just like motion has energy. Just like position has energy. But the fields are NOT just energy. Nor is motion just energy.

You cannot separate the energy from the field. But the energy is not the the field.

I have never said the em fields are just energy, quite the contrary, I said this "Energy. frequency and wavelength are only different conceptual aspects of the one thing, there is no wavelength aspect without a frequency and energy aspect, and no frequency aspect with an energy and wavelength aspect, and no energy aspect without a frequency and wavelength aspect."

I have consistently been pointing to the underlying unity of reality, while acknowledging the benefits of the mind's conceptually differentiating the apparent aspects that constitute it to better understand its nature.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Casimir effect is real.

Conservation of momentum.

Is the energy of motion a phenomenon in its own right and the motion and energy separate altogether?

I know it is real, but never mind, my point was that some teach about it on the basis of em waves theory and the other particles.

In what way is the conservation of momentum principle violated by using its energy? Does the classical Casimir experiment of using the em wave energy 'pressure' to move plates violate the principle in any way?

No.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You asked whether light was a wave or a particle. It is both. It is an E&M wave *and* is composed of photons.

The photons, or alternatively, the E&M fields, have energy. But they are not the *same* as energy.

Would you say that sound is an energy wave?

Ah, so you were being purposely obtuse when you denied that light is not an aspect of em energy, but was purely a photon.

In the context of a photon, there is no photon with out energy and no energy without the photon.

Yes, sound waves are waves of sound energy, in this context, they can also be considered energy waves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Light exists as E&M waves. Electromagnetism isn't the same as energy.

Would you say that sound exists as pressure energy waves?

Do you mean by "em isn't the same as energy" as that, while there is an energy aspect to em, it is not just energy? We do not want trollish behavior to creep in, do we?

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, so you were being purposely obtuse when you denied that light is not an aspect of em energy, but was purely a photon.

In the context of a photon, there is no photon with out energy and no energy without the photon.

Yes, sound waves are waves of sound energy, in this context, they can also be considered energy waves.

OK, then we simply use the words in a very different way.

 

[Thief]

Provide your evidence to make such a bold claim

And still you have provided nothing to explain how a full sphere is hollow.

not a full sphere
that would be your claim

 

[ChristineM]

not a full sphere
that would be your claim

Actually is was yours

 

[ChristineM]

not a full sphere
that would be your claim

Actually it was yours

 

[gnostic]

Try and follow the thread, the point of my post was to show Polymaths that light was an em wave energy, after Polymath said no it wasn't, it was composed of photons. See his post #3405..

All waves (mechanical, gravitational, sound and EM) have energy, as do all fields (electrical and magnetic fields, gravitational field) and all matters and particles that have masses.

As to light, light has dual properties of being particle (hence, photon) and wave (hence, EM wave).

Polymath have been telling you all along that light are both waves and particles, but you are the one who has not paying attention to polymath's explanation and/or to the physics.

I do not need to paid attention to thread, because I have already pay attention to physics in both class/lab settings and in physics textbooks, which is more than I can say for you.

Alber Einstein was one of the earlier physicists to show that light acts like both wave and particle, in his theory on Photoelectric Effect, in which he won the Nobel Prize in 1921.

Heinrich Hertz and Max Planck had earlier worked on the effect of light, but it was Einstein who solved the problem, and that changed our perspective on the classical theory on electromagnetism. Einstein's work revolutionised how we view all EM waves (or EM radiation).

You are still refusing to admit that you have been wrong.

Originally, you were arguing that EM (types, like microwaves, x-rays, visible light) were energy, not waves. And you were arguing that with us that radiation were indistinguishable and synonymous with energy.

Both polymath and I, have been telling you that radiation and waves carry energy, but they weren't energy themselves. Energy were only part of EM waves, like property of EM radiation (wave), just as wavelength and frequency are properties of EM waves.

Now you have switched tactics, now calling it "EM wave energy", instead of just "EM energy", to cover your mistakes. And also now, you have saying that energy is an "aspect" of EM wave...which is what me and polymath have been saying all along, but you disagreed with us back then.

I have never said the em fields are just energy, quite the contrary, I said this "Energy. frequency and wavelength are only different conceptual aspects of the one thing, there is no wavelength aspect without a frequency and energy aspect, and no frequency aspect with an energy and wavelength aspect, and no energy aspect without a frequency and wavelength aspect."

Using the word "aspect" or "property", actually mean the same things. We have been telling you this, about energy being property or aspect of EM, but clearly you didn't pay attention to what we were trying to explain to you.

But now that you have switch track, you are now about dishonest about it. Instead of admission, you are trying to turn the table around, twisting our words.

We were the ones telling you that EM radiation is not pure energy; you were the one saying that radiation is energy.

Neither polymath, nor I, stated that EM radiation don't have energy; no, we have been telling you that energy is just one "property" (or one "aspect") of EM radiation.

And you are still misunderstanding polymath on the topic of photons, particularly in regards to light.

Light is both EM wave and particle, because light have behaviours of particle and waves. Polymath said this a number of times to you. I have said it a few times. And it is what it say in all current physics textbooks.

You asked whether light was a wave or a particle. It is both. It is an E&M wave *and* is composed of photons.

The photons, or alternatively, the E&M fields, have energy. But they are not the *same* as energy.

Would you say that sound is an energy wave?

Polymath himself stated light weren't "pure energy". He stated that light (like every other EM radiation), possesses momentum, so since it has momentum, it has energy. I believed that he use words "kinetic energy" about light.

You should be paying attention to the explanations given to you by polymath, since you won't take mine, since you belittling me about my "poor English".

My English grammar and spelling may be limited and poor, but I don't think you understand physics better than me, even with your superior command of English.

 

[Thief]

Actually it was yours

double postings and confusion

of course a simple explosion would be a single percussion wave

I believe that expansion is gaining speed
I have heard as much

and it spins...with spirals and orbits....
which would NEED to be in place BEFORE the expansion begins

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All waves (mechanical, gravitational, sound and EM) have energy, as do all fields (electrical and magnetic fields, gravitational field) and all matters and particles that have masses.

As to light, light has dual properties of being particle (hence, photon) and wave (hence, EM wave).

Polymath have been telling you all along that light are both waves and particles, but you are the one who has not paying attention to polymath's explanation and/or to the physics.

I do not need to paid attention to thread, because I have already pay attention to physics in both class/lab settings and in physics textbooks, which is more than I can say for you.

Alber Einstein was one of the earlier physicists to show that light acts like both wave and particle, in his theory on Photoelectric Effect, in which he won the Nobel Prize in 1921.

Heinrich Hertz and Max Planck had earlier worked on the effect of light, but it was Einstein who solved the problem, and that changed our perspective on the classical theory on electromagnetism. Einstein's work revolutionised how we view all EM waves (or EM radiation).

You are still refusing to admit that you have been wrong.

Originally, you were arguing that EM (types, like microwaves, x-rays, visible light) were energy, not waves. And you were arguing that with us that radiation were indistinguishable and synonymous with energy.

Both polymath and I, have been telling you that radiation and waves carry energy, but they weren't energy themselves. Energy were only part of EM waves, like property of EM radiation (wave), just as wavelength and frequency are properties of EM waves.

Now you have switched tactics, now calling it "EM wave energy", instead of just "EM energy", to cover your mistakes. And also now, you have saying that energy is an "aspect" of EM wave...which is what me and polymath have been saying all along, but you disagreed with us back then.



Using the word "aspect" or "property", actually mean the same things. We have been telling you this, about energy being property or aspect of EM, but clearly you didn't pay attention to what we were trying to explain to you.

But now that you have switch track, you are now about dishonest about it. Instead of admission, you are trying to turn the table around, twisting our words.

We were the ones telling you that EM radiation is not pure energy; you were the one saying that radiation is energy.

Neither polymath, nor I, stated that EM radiation don't have energy; no, we have been telling you that energy is just one "property" (or one "aspect") of EM radiation.

And you are still misunderstanding polymath on the topic of photons, particularly in regards to light.

Light is both EM wave and particle, because light have behaviours of particle and waves. Polymath said this a number of times to you. I have said it a few times. And it is what it say in all current physics textbooks.


Polymath himself stated light weren't "pure energy". He stated that light (like every other EM radiation), possesses momentum, so since it has momentum, it has energy. I believed that he use words "kinetic energy" about light.

You should be paying attention to the explanations given to you by polymath, since you won't take mine, since you belittling me about my "poor English".

My English grammar and spelling may be limited and poor, but I don't think you understand physics better than me, even with your superior command of English.

Try and follow the thread, read the exchanges between Polymaths and myself, at the end of it, he acknowledges that he now understands what I was saying and he was ok with it.

As you follow it, try and understand that there is a unity underlying all these aspects, or properties if you prefer, of that which is being described. Quite simple when you are able to grok it, but if you are only looking at the trees, you will never apprehend the forest!

 

[gnostic]

As you follow it, try and understand that there is a unity underlying all these aspects, or properties if you prefer, of that which is being described.

Look, Ben. I have been telling you all along that these properties are essential in understanding the waves. You thought it radiation and energy were ones and the same. They aren't the same, but radiation do have energy, because it is energy that help the radiation to propagate its waves.

I didn't say there were no "unity underlying all these aspects". Did I say anything about there being "no unity". You are now drawing straw man up your sleeves. Right now, you are being a j***!

No one were denying that energy is important, but it is also important for every other non-EM radiations, energy are important to fields as well.

It is only just the last few posts, that you even admit energy is only just one aspect of EM radiation.

The right term on EM are Electromagnetic Wave or Electromagnetic Radiation, not Electromagnetic Energy, or this more recent one of yours - it is not "Electromagnetic Wave Energy".

You are only just now calling it Wave, just to cover your a**, so that you don't have to admit that you were wrong.

How about you trying to understand the physics, before you run off with your mouth, and thinking you are right about everything?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Look, Ben. I have been telling you all along that these properties are essential in understanding the waves. You thought it radiation and energy were ones and the same. They aren't the same, but radiation do have energy, because it is energy that help the radiation to propagate its waves.

I didn't say there were no "unity underlying all these aspects". Did I say anything about there being "no unity". You are now drawing straw man up your sleeves. Right now, you are being a j***!

No one were denying that energy is important, but it is also important for every other non-EM radiations, energy are important to fields as well.

It is only just the last few posts, that you even admit energy is only just one aspect of EM radiation.

The right term on EM are Electromagnetic Wave or Electromagnetic Radiation, not Electromagnetic Energy, or this more recent one of yours - it is not "Electromagnetic Wave Energy".

You are only just now calling it Wave, just to cover your a**, so that you don't have to admit that you were wrong.

How about you trying to understand the physics, before you run off with your mouth, and thinking you are right about everything?

You are now making things up gnostic, quote the exact words you are referring to wrt my saying radiation was the same as energy? Certainly the term em radiation presumes energy because that is the nature of em radiation, it is energy being radiated.

And quote me where I said or implied that em radiation did not have any other aspects to it than energy?

There is no just one correct term in use to describe the totality of all the facets involved in em radiation, all these terms are valid. ..em radio frequency, em energy, em fields, em waves, em radio wavelengths, em energy waves, em wave energy, the list could go on. Your lack of English understanding is a real problem.

One does not have to use the term 'wave' in describing em radiation, for 'em radiation' alone is sufficient for those with experience because the wave nature of the em radiation is a given. It is only you as a student, whose English and practical experience in the radio field is less than proficient for the purposes to have a have a reasonable technical exchange in these matters, who balks at common technical terms used in the field but not found in his textbook.

I am happy to explain anything you do not understand, but you must help yourself in the process by not imagining you yet understand clearly what is being said to you. Humility is only present in a disciplined mind.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are purposely being pedantic, do you want to get into the wave particle debate, when I say it is em wave energy, you categorically said no, it was not, light is a particle. Do you deny light exists as em energy waves?

Light doesn't exist as a wave, nor does "em energy" exist as waves, because nothing in modern physics exists as waves and em phenomena (both classically treated and within modern physics) are dealt with field-theoretically. EM "waves" in modern physics are dealt with mostly within QED but also within the electroweak unification. In neither case do we find either waves or wave energy and "light" doesn't exist as em energy waves in any physical theory, including classical electromagnetism. It is true that in classical field theory, electromagnetic waves include lightwaves as among the possible spectra. Still, these are not "energy waves" and in modern physics it would be more accurate to describe light in terms of "probability waves" than "energy waves" (I'm not asserting that they are the former). Second quantization in modern physics yields discrete, localized physicals systems capable of emitting infinitely many virtual and "real" radiative particles including those for light. It doesn't allow or involve "em energy waves."
That said, as for photons:
"The word "photon" is seen as a linguistic device to describe this particle-like character of the excitations of the EM field...
The complete indistinguishability of photons directly follows from this description, since they are not separate entities. Logically, photons hardly deserve the dignity of a noun. When you speak more correctly of different levels of excitation of the modes of the field the question of the identity of the photons becomes meaningless. They are truly faceless."
Mills, R. (1993). Tutorial on Infinities in QED. In L. M. Brown (Ed.). Renormalization: From Lorentz to Landau (and Beyond) (pp.59-85). Springer.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Light doesn't exist as a wave, nor does "em energy" exist as waves, because nothing in modern physics exists as waves and em phenomena (both classically treated and within modern physics) are dealt with field-theoretically. EM "waves" in modern physics are dealt with mostly within QED but also within the electroweak unification. In neither case do we find either waves or wave energy and "light" doesn't exist as em energy waves in any physical theory, including classical electromagnetism. It is true that in classical field theory, electromagnetic waves include lightwaves as among the possible spectra. Still, these are not "energy waves" and in modern physics it would be more accurate to describe light in terms of "probability waves" than "energy waves" (I'm not asserting that they are the former). Second quantization in modern physics yields discrete, localized physicals systems capable of emitting infinitely many virtual and "real" radiative particles including those for light. It does allow or involve "em energy waves."
That said, as for photons:
"The word "photon" is seen as a linguistic device to describe this particle-like character of the excitations of the EM field...
The complete indistinguishability of photons directly follows from this description, since they are not separate entities. Logically, photons hardly deserve the dignity of a noun. When you speak more correctly of different levels of excitation of the modes of the field the question of the identity of the photons becomes meaningless. They are truly faceless."
Mills, R. (1993). Tutorial on Infinities in QED. In L. M. Brown (Ed.). Renormalization: From Lorentz to Landau (and Beyond) (pp.59-85). Springer.

Same sort of pedantic obtuseness as ever, read it and weep......"Visible light, which occupies a middle ground in frequency, can easily be shown in experiments to be describable using either a wave or particle model, or sometimes both." ... Light - Wikipedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Same sort of pedantic obtuseness as ever, read it and weep......"Visible light, which occupies a middle ground in frequency, can easily be shown in experiments to be describable using either a wave or particle model, or sometimes both." ... Light - Wikipedia

I cite physics literature and can cite more, but am supposed to weep because you can access Wikipedia? You are going to have to do better. I can refer you to the technical literature on the physical nature of (and theories within physics of) light and energy if you wish, but not if your approach is "read it and weep" followed by quote-mining Wikipedia.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I cite physics literature and can cite more, but am supposed to weep because you can access Wikipedia? You are going to have to do better. I can refer you to the technical literature on the physical nature of (and theories within physics of) light and energy if you wish, but not if your approach is "read it and weep" followed by quote-mining Wikipedia.

Sorry to be so abrupt LOM, I know you love to discuss these matters and so I should have been more considerate and politely engaged you.

So... I'm well aware of the the double split experiment showing light behaving either as waves or a particles, and thought the quote from wiki was ok?